Movie Review: "Steve Jobs"

Steve Jobs (2015)

R

3.5 Stars out of 5

Director                                Danny Boyle
Writer                                   Aaron Sorkin (screenplay); Walter Isaacson (book)
Cinematography                 Alwin Küchler
Film Editing                          Elliot Graham
Music                                    Daniel Pemberton

Michael Fassbender           Steve Jobs
Kate Winslet                        Joanna Hoffman
Seth Rogen                          Steve Wozniak                   
Jeff Daniels                          John Sculley
Michael Stuhlbarg              Andy Hertzfeld
Katherine Waterson          Chrisann Brennan
Perla Haney-Jardine           Lisa Brennan, age 19
Ripley Sobo                          Lisa Brennan, age 9
Makenzie Moss                   Lisa Brennan, age 5



  “It's not binary. You can be decent and gifted at the same time.”

Steve Wozniak

Is the Danny Boyle/Aaron Sorkin 2015 biopic on Steve Jobs entitled “Steve Jobs” a very well made film? Yes, unquestionably it is. There is superb acting by its two leads, Michael Fassbender and Kate Winslet. There is remarkable cinematography and set design to go along with a brilliant score and film editing. In fact, I think the direction by Boyle and much of the writing by Sorkin are also great. But why Sorkin or Boyle would somehow think that this film was based on the absolutely brilliant 2011 biography “Steve Jobs” by Walter Isaacson is utterly beyond me. I have read elsewhere that Boyle vigorously defends his interpretation of Jobs’ life as shown in this film, and that’s perfectly fine by me. But I am stretched to the breaking point in my efforts to line up this film’s character arc with the depiction of Jobs made by Isaacson. It is a good film, but it is art spiced with only some veracity. If a movie goer wishes to be entertained with Boyle’s and the cast’s artistic abilities, then sure, see this movie, it is worth the effort. But if you want to actually learn who Steve Jobs was, take the time to read Isaacson’s book. That too is really worth the effort.

The Boyle/Sorkin team took three events from Jobs’ professional life that were all Apple product introductions and used these three events to trace a largely imaginary journey through time by their version of Steve Jobs and his relationship to his first-borne child, Lisa Brennan. The first event was Jobs’ introduction of the Macintosh. During this part of the movie, the best part of the movie as it lies the closest to historical fact. Jobs as played by Michael Fassbender is shown to be utterly in charge of his team. No matter that what he wants is illegal (turning off the Exit sign lights), or technically impossible (fixing a bug in the software in too short a time period), or inhumanely cruel to his first born 5 year old daughter Lisa (Makenzie Moss). Moss does a fine job of endearing herself to the audience; not so much to Jobs the character. Jobs endlessly (and within earshot of Lisa) insists to Lisa’s mother, Chrisanne (Katherine Waterson) that Lisa is not his daughter. The argument is painful to watch for the audience and for the characters standing near the distraught mother and insensitive father.

These opening scenes depict with some accuracy Jobs’ intellect for detail and memory, his unconquerable drive for control, and his seeming utter lack of empathy for all around him, even for the feelings of a five year old clearly in awe of him. The scene is directed with a frantic energy that goes well with the typical Aaron Sorkin script of rapid fire dialogs and sudden changes of direction in the content of those conversations. Also working well in these early parts of the movie (indeed the whole movie) is the editing which will be used to cross-cut from the present product show to scenes early in the history of Wozniak and Jobs. Yet one more key aspect of these early scenes and again during the whole movie, but especially so in these scenes used to set the tone for the movie is the driving, pulsating score. The editing and music that is used throughout the movie are great and near essential elements in creating a sense of frantic pacing; a kind of peak into the presumed swirling maelstrom of Steve Jobs’ frenetic mind.

The early scenes are essential also for establishing the character of Apple’s VP of Marketing, Joanna Hoffman (Winslet), lead software engineer, Andy Herztfeld (Michael Stuhlbarg), and Apple co-founder and lead hardware engineer, Steve Wozniak (Seth Rogen). All three of these roles are well played, surprisingly so by Rogen as he does so without a trace of his usual levity. However, all three characters really strike me as little more than foils to display some aspect of Jobs’ malformed personality. Hoffman may be a VP of marketing but in this movie she seems to be little more than Jobs’ “girl Friday” in terms of what she does, as well as the only one with the gumption and permission to argue with Jobs. Hertzfeld plays the unrecognized and unappreciated male friend to Jobs, willing to jump in unasked and play the back-up role of father to the neglected Lisa. And Wozniak is simply the nerd that once built Apple’s first successful computer, the Apple II, and is now reduced to doing little more than publically screaming for recognition of that fact. None of these roles bear much resemblance to the descriptions written by Isaacson in the book that allegedly is the basis for this movie.

The movie will now introduce John Sculley (Jeff Daniels) as the new CEO for Apple. In the book and presumably in real life, Jobs went on one of his relentless drives to get his way; this time to get Sculley to leave Pepsico and come to Apple. Initially, it was a mutual love-fest. Jobs would repeatedly complement Sculley, telling him how much Apple needed his expertise. And in the book far more so than in the movie, Sculley would reciprocate, telling Jobs just how much Sculley admired Jobs and how much his flattery meant to him. The movie will work somewhat well in the movie’s second act which displays the irony of how Sculley will orchestrate Apple’s “firing” of Jobs. It is a complicated tale, somewhat described by the movie. What the movie does more than actually detail the situation and maneuver’s used to disenfranchise Jobs is talk more about the ambiguity of the transition: Jobs will insist Sculley fired him, Sculley will aver that the board did so, not Sculley. This fracas is turned into a he did/she did imbroglio without very much insight into what actually happened. This then is my primary complaint about the movie. It is a movie about how things feel and not a movie about how things happened. Again, it is a work of art, not an actual biography.

However frustrating the second act was, the concluding act is an absolute travesty of the truth. Jobs returns to Apple after a stint at NeXT and Sculley has left Apple in disgrace. At this point in the movie, and following the success of the Apple II, Sorkin wants us to believe Jobs has had only failures: the Macintosh at Apple (the putative cause for Jobs’ ejection from Apple) and the DOA computer from his new company NeXT). The movie leaves out completely Jobs’ successes at Pixar and further wants us to believe that Jobs’ plan all along at NeXT was to manipulate events such that Apple would be forced to come after Andy Hertzfeld’s OS used at NeXT; and to do so, they would be required to take back Jobs and fire Sculley. As with the rest of the movie, there may be some underlying truths in this version, but it is such a skeletonized version of what actually took place, that it is essentially false. However, the most aggravating thing about the movie is not this timeline in the third act. Instead, the biggest problem is that in the interest of a happy ending for someone who was neurotically un-empathic, Sorkin uses Jobs’ return to Apple as a means to provide his character with a clear and positive arc.

After returning to Apple, we meet Jobs again preparing for another product showing, this time for the iMac. We will see him have one more argument with Wozniak about recognizing the Apple II engineering staff. We will see him again arguing with people about the presentation that is about to be given, albeit Jobs has a softer tone this time. And we will again see Ms. Hoffman trying to get Jobs to reconcile with Lisa. As she does so, we will also see once again Jobs verbally flay Hertzfeld, this time for trying to displace Jobs as Lisa’s father – or so it will be seen by Jobs. None of these portrayals seem out of character for anyone. The problem is the inevitable (for Hollywood) reconciliation between Jobs and Lisa. It will be somewhat arduous, but just as surely as the real Jobs would always get his way, he will reconcile with Lisa. She will (now played at 19 by Perla Haney-Jardine) refuse at first to see him, then she will but angrily so, she will  then stomp away, and then after a “big reveal” conversation on a rooftop agree to watch his presentation from back stage. This was something she had asked repeatedly to do earlier in her life at age 9 (Ripley Sobo). The closing scene, as nicely done as it was emotionally, will show Jobs turning from his iMac audience to walk briskly towards Lisa standing in the shadows. Nice and heartwarming, and quite frankly I would hope something like that happened. Problem is it evidently didn’t happen. Lisa and Jobs would remain essentially alienated until the day of his death.

So what is “Steve Jobs” the movie? It is not a biography and for that matter is not even in my opinion an accurate portrayal of the actual arc of his emotional life. Left out of the movie completely is the primary person that had a late-in-life positive effect on Jobs’ personality, his wife, Laurene Powell. Jobs would have three children by her, a boy and two girls. According to Isaacson, Jobs’ personality did improve in terms of improving empathy in the years following his marriage to Powell. And he would improve considerably his fathering skills with the three legitimate children he had with Powell; especially so with his only son. Thus, an argument might be made that the Boyle/Sorkin tale sort of, kind of tells the truth: Jobs did learn to some degree to be a father. That being said, the falseness of this movie is so striking, I cannot review it for its artistic merits alone; which are strong. I would have liked to have given this movie 4.5 out of 5 rather than the 3.5 out of 5 I have settled on. The technical merits and artistic qualities of this movie are high, but its fundamental link to the truth is so shaky, I came away from this movie deeply disappointed. Watch this movie if you wish to see professional movie makers at work, but read Isaacon’s book if you really want to learn about Jobs and the industry he so thoroughly influenced.